For those who are interested, David Brooks had a conversation with Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld (who APS called a "Legend"; see: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09897.html ) at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on June 17, 2013, and the video of the conversation can be accessed here: http://www.aei.org/events/2013/06/17/brainwashed-the-use-and-misuse-of-neuroscience/
I haven't watched the entire video (it's a little over an hour) so I won't comment on it. I do admit to being surprised at the interest expressed for the views presented especially by conservatives, for example see this article at the American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-temptation-of-neuroscience/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-temptation-of-neuroscience and this one in National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350116/whos-brainwashed-interview and so on. I don't get why conservatives are interested. I haven't read Satel's and Lilienfeld's book "Brainwashed" so I have a couple questions for anyone who has read it: (1) Is the basic argument against "pop neuroscience" as reported in the mass media (see Payne's comment on the American Conservative website) or against all of neuroscience? (2) Is the basic argument against neuroimaging research or all of neuroscience (e.g., do they demolish Hubel & Wiesel and Sperry & Gazzinaga and other researchers who use, say, single-cell recording)? If just neuroimaging research, isn't the presentation a little broad? Send me something. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=26222 or send a blank email to leave-26222-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
